West Region Child and Family Services Inc. v. North

West Region Child and Family Services Inc. v. North Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-03-01 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 96 File numbers A-525-05 Decision Content Date: 20070301 Docket: A-525-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 96 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: WEST REGION CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES INC. Appellant and JOHN NORTH Respondent Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 1, 2007. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 1, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PELLETIER J.A. Date: 20070301 Docket: A-525-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 96 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: WEST REGION CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES INC. Appellant and JOHN NORTH Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 1, 2007) PELLETIER J.A. [1] The appellant's principal argument runs as follows. The standard of review of a decision of an adjudicator under the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, is that of the patently unreasonable decision. A decision is patently unreasonable if there is no evidence capable of supporting the decision. In this case, the record discloses an abundance of evidence capable of supporting the adjudicator's decision. Consequently, the decision should stand notwithstanding the inadequacy of the adjudicator's reasons. [2] The difficulty with this argument is that it conflates the standard of review of a decision with the standard applicable to reasons to be given by a decision-maker. [3] The obligation to give reasons is a requirement of procedural fairness. The basis of the obligation was set out by the Supreme Court in R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869, a decision which, though made in the criminal context, is equally applicable to the administrative law context. In this case, the obligation to give reasons is found in the statute. [4] If the decision-maker does not provide reasons which set out his findings and the basis upon which they are made, there is no substrate for the application of the standard of review. [5] The appellant's argument amounts to dispensing with the requirement to give reasons where the standard of review is patent unreasonableness by suggesting that the decision should stand if the reviewing judge finds that there is any evidence capable of supporting the decision-maker's conclusion. In this context, this ignores the fact that it is the adjudicator, not the reviewing judge, who is called upon to decide whether a dismissal is just. Procedural fairness requires the adjudicator to render a reasoned decision. The standard of review is then applied to those reasons. [6] Here, the adjudicator's reasons are clearly inadequate. They consist of a lengthy summary of the evidence, followed by a series of conclusions for which no supporting reasoning is given. One cannot, on the strength of these reasons, understand the process by which the adjudicator came to those conclusions. This is as clear a case of failing to provide reasons as one could find. [7] No reasons having been provided, there is no substrate for a judicial review of the decision. This failure to provide procedural fairness cannot be remedied or displaced by invoking the "patently unreasonable" standard of review so as to have the reviewing Court make the decision which the adjudicator was required to make. [8] Notwithstanding Mr. Harvie's able and ingenious argument, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. "J.D. Denis Pelletier" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-525-05 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT DATED OCTOBER 6, 2005, DOCKETS NOS. T-1397-04 AND T-1422-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: West Region Child and Family Services Inc. v. John North PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba DATE OF HEARING: March 1, 2007 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PELLETIER J.A. APPEARANCES: John Harvie and Michael Clark FOR THE APPELLANT Paul Edwards and Carolyn Frost FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Myers Weinberg Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR THE APPELLANT Duboff Edwards Haight & Schachter Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR THE RESPONDENT